ReviewBiological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society2025
Rewilded horses in European nature conservation - a genetics, ethics, and welfare perspective.
Review in Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Open habitats and species differences shape space use in semi-feral cattle and horses across Danish rewilding sites.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In recent decades, the integration of horses (Equus ferus) in European rewilding initiatives has gained widespread popularity due to their potential for regulating vegetation and restoring natural ecosystems. However, employing horses in conservation efforts presents important challenges, which we here explore and discuss. These challenges encompass the lack of consensus on key terms inherent to conservation and rewilding, the entrenched culture and strong emotions associated with horses, low genetic diversity and high susceptibility to hereditary diseases in animals under human selection, as well as insufficient consideration for the social behaviour of horses in wild-living populations. In addition, management of wild-living horses involves intricate welfare, ethics and legislative dimensions. Anthropocentric population-control initiatives may be detrimental to horse group structures since they tend to prioritise individual welfare over the health of populations and ecosystems. To overcome these challenges, we provide comprehensive recommendations. These involve a systematic acquisition of genetic information, a focus on genetic diversity rather than breed purity and minimal veterinary intervention in wild-living populations. Further, we advise allowing for natural top-down and bottom-up control - or, if impossible, simulating this by culling or non-lethal removal of horses - instead of using fertility control for population management. We advocate for intensified collaboration between conservation biologists and practitioners and enhanced communication with the general public. Decision-making should be informed by a thorough understanding of the genetic makeup, common health issues and dynamics, and social behaviour in wild-living horse populations. Such a holistic approach is essential to reconcile human emotions associated with horses with the implementation of conservation practices that are not only effective but also sustainable for the long-term viability of functional, biodiverse ecosystems, while rehabilitating the horse as a widespread wild-living species in Europe.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.